SHAMBU RAM AND ORS Vs. FAZAL DIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.12.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1990.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he being in possession as non-occupancy tenant over the suit land detailed in the plaint had acquired the proprietary rights over the suit land on the appointed day of enforcement of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment No. and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and also for declaration that the revenue entry showing the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants for convenience sake) as Khudkasht with effect from Kharif 1983 on the basis of order dated 18.6.1983 of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Amb are totally illegal, void ab initio and not binding upon him. He has also prayed for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. He has alleged that he had been coming in possession of the suit land as non-occupancy tenant since the time of his fore-father and has acquired the proprietary rights over the suit land. The learned Sub Judge decreed the suit on 18.5.1990. The defendants preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Una. He dismissed the appeal on 30.12.1998. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.12.1998. The same was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) Whether both the Courts below misread ad misappreciated documentary evidence with special reference to Ext. P-6, thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees